Explain please

[tommyjones]

I have repeatedly. And, I've repeatedly shown that abiogenesis does not fall into the scientific method, as it has not and can not be tested. Evolution from sponge to human, also, is not under the scientific method for the same reason.

Neither of these beliefs are any more credible than any religion out there for this very reason.

and that is why it is a theory, but not one has said that it is the only possible theory.

that is why it is different than faith.

as for more credible than religion, yes, most of these theories, as they are supported by evidence, are more credible than religion, which must be taken completely on faith.

 

[This_person]

and that is why it is a theory, but not one has said that it is the only possible theory.

that is why it is different than faith.

as for more credible than religion, yes, most of these theories, as they are supported by evidence, are more credible than religion, which must be taken completely on faith.

:sigh:

So, they're theories that don't, can't, and won't meet scientific method; but, they're better than religion how? What evidence supports them? There is NO evidence that supports them!

Evolution of a species (ie, taller, more hairy, less hairy, changes in diet, stronger, extinct, etc) are all pretty well documented. Changes from sponge to kiwi and human are NOT in any way documented. Zero evidence.

As for abiogenesis, the only evidence is the exact same evidence as Intelligent Design - we're here and alive. Not a single other thing.

 

[tommyjones]

:sigh:

So, they're theories that don't, can't, and won't meet scientific method; but, they're better than religion how? What evidence supports them? There is NO evidence that supports them!

Evolution of a species (ie, taller, more hairy, less hairy, changes in diet, stronger, extinct, etc) are all pretty well documented. Changes from sponge to kiwi and human are NOT in any way documented. Zero evidence.

As for abiogenesis, the only evidence is the exact same evidence as Intelligent Design - we're here and alive. Not a single other thing.

i am bored with your continued retardisms

 

[This_person]

i am bored with your continued retardisms

If you feel I'm inaccurate in some way, please provide me with the evidence.

but, since i know you can't, I understand why you're bored. You don't understand the Big Bang theory, you don't understand the time/space relationship, and you have no argument against the truth of there being no science to abiogenesis, no science to sponge to human, etc.

If I were you, I'd bow out, too.

 

[tommyjones]

If you feel I'm inaccurate in some way, please provide me with the evidence.

but, since i know you can't, I understand why you're bored. You don't understand the Big Bang theory, you don't understand the time/space relationship, and you have no argument against the truth of there being no science to abiogenesis, no science to sponge to human, etc.

If I were you, I'd bow out, too.

i am a scientist by profession, I can understand those theories just fine. I just realized a while ago that you wont accept anything other than what you have taken on faith, and anyhting that doesn't jive with what you have taken on faith will be ignored.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEORIES OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

 

[This_person]

i am a scientist by profession, I can understand those theories just fine. I just realized a while ago that you wont accept anything other than what you have taken on faith, and anyhting that doesn't jive with what you have taken on faith will be ignored.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEORIES OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Enlighten me. What about abiogenesis meets the scientific method?

What about sponge to human and kiwi meets the scientific method?

Don't compare them to religion, just on their own merits, how do they meet? What testing is capable of being done? What evidence is there to support the hypotheses and make them theories?

 

[PsyOps]

saying we dont know but have a theory is different than faith.

okay... I have a theory that God created the universe, life and all the things in it.

 

[This_person]

okay... I have a theory that God created the universe, life and all the things in it.

You do realize he'll tell you that you don't understand the scientific view of what a "theory" is, even though he'll also not be able to tell you how abiogenesis fits what a "theory" is any better than Intelligent Design?

 

[tommyjones]

okay... I have a theory that God created the universe, life and all the things in it.

now that sounds like a theory. it becomes religion when you are actively defending it instead of actively trying to disprove it. So do you blindly accept your theory as fact or are you actively trying to find evidence, experiements, etc. that disproves your hypothesis? that is where you find the difference between science and religion.

 

[PsyOps]

You do realize he'll tell you that you don't understand the scientific view of what a "theory" is, even though he'll also not be able to tell you how abiogenesis fits what a "theory" is any better than Intelligent Design?

Some are satisfied with having numbers and theoretical assumptions answer their questions. I’m fine with that. I am there to a certain degree. Where I’m not is that this line of thinking is the key to answering our universe’s every mystery. Neither their faith in theories nor my faith in God will ever satisfy, absolutely, how things got here devoid of actual concrete evidence. Neither have it. What both do have is a lot of people that believe it. The one thing that science lacks that God provides is the possibility of an afterlife. It’s too much of a stretch for an “intellectual mind” to believe that could possibly be a being far superior to them. I sometimes think it’s this intelligence that closes their minds to any sort of spiritual possibilities; that there just might be another realm of LIFE that exists beyond the limited senses we have contained within these shells we call the human body.

 

[PsyOps]

now that sounds like a theory. it becomes religion when you are actively defending it instead of actively trying to disprove it. So do you blindly accept your theory as fact or are you actively trying to find evidence, experiements, etc. that disproves your hypothesis? that is where you find the difference between science and religion.

I am always seeking the truth of my God. Not in order to disprove it, but to make it more alive within me. And perhaps that's the definitive difference... you are trying to disprove that which you really don't believe but want to. You are seeking hard facts that may not exist or that may reveal something different than what you expected.

I'm not trying to argue the difference between religion and science. I'm trying to point out that your belief in the big bang as fact for the reason our universe exists (hypothetical) is no different than my belief that God created the universe. It's just my belief is accompanied by an intelligent being that us actually smarter than us and already figured it all out. Yours demands that you figure out that which is already figured out. I have no problem with that. I say keep researching. It's interesting stuff. Don't be surprised that at the end of your research you actually find................ God............. and not some big bang.

 

[tommyjones]

I am always seeking the truth of my God. Not in order to disprove it, but to make it more alive within me. And perhaps that's the definitive difference... you are trying to disprove that which you really don't believe but want to. You are seeking hard facts that may not exist or that may reveal something different than what you expected.

I'm not trying to argue the difference between religion and science. I'm trying to point out that your belief in the big bang as fact for the reason our universe exists (hypothetical) is no different than my belief that God created the universe. It's just my belief is accompanied by an intelligent being that us actually smarter than us and already figured it all out. Yours demands that you figure out that which is already figured out. I have no problem with that. I say keep researching. It's interesting stuff. Don't be surprised that at the end of your research you actually find................ God............. and not some big bang.

that is the difference, you look for what you want to find, a scientist looks for the sake of knowledge. if it disproves his theory, so be it. He certainly doens't ignore evidence to the contrary because he has already made up his mind as to the final answer.

and you should really open your mind and research "religion" with the same skepticism a scientist uses, you might find that what you have accepted on faith has little basis in reality.

 

[This_person]

and you should really open your mind and research "religion" with the same skepticism a scientist uses, you might find that what you have accepted on faith has little basis in reality.

I suggest the same for you regarding abiogenesis.

Let me know what you find.


Or, is your lack of response already letting me know..........

 

[itsbob]

Noah's Ark.



The thought of it just crossed my mind and I wanted the religious explanation of how he fit all of those animals on the boat, ect ect please.

TIA

La Machine??
<img src='http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml86/86051.gif'>

 

[PsyOps]

that is the difference, you look for what you want to find, a scientist looks for the sake of knowledge. if it disproves his theory, so be it. He certainly doens't ignore evidence to the contrary because he has already made up his mind as to the final answer.

Can you explain what compels you to be drawn to science? I can explain what compels me to believe in God. And it’s not just some blind following. I am intrigued by the things spiritual. And it’s not some heebeejeebee thing of ghosts and spirits floating around. It’s more of a desire to understand what lies beyond this shell we exist in on this earth. THAT’S what I seek. I’ve spent a good part of my life delving in to science and astronomy and such. It’s still a deep interest of mine. There is a lot to be learned about our universe.

There was a bit of a turning point for me though. I’ve mentioned this before but, when I lived at home, back in the late 70s our neighbor was John Mather (the Nobel winner in Physics). He would come to our house and we would talk. His job then was to study the big bang and 3 degree radiation background. We were all intrigued with his thoughts on the universe. Being only about 16 or 17 my questions were pretty simple. What came before the big bang? He said he didn’t know. I said when you find out, what came before that? He said this could be an endless game with no beginning. I asked him of the possibility of God. He said there is always that possibility. I remember asking him if he thought his research could ever reveal that answer. He believed science could reveal anything if you’re looking the right place.

and you should really open your mind and research "religion" with the same skepticism a scientist uses, you might find that what you have accepted on faith has little basis in reality.

Does that tell you a little about my open mind? I think you will find that you are looking in the wrong places if you haven’t even considered God as a possibility.

Now for a more important question... did you check our my music?

 

[PsyOps]

La Machine??
<img src='http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml86/86051.gif'>

Awwww come on man... that's just blatantly false. You know Noah used PKZip.

 

[This_person]

i am a scientist by profession, I can understand those theories just fine. I just realized a while ago that you wont accept anything other than what you have taken on faith, and anyhting that doesn't jive with what you have taken on faith will be ignored.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEORIES OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Enlighten me. What about abiogenesis meets the scientific method?

What about sponge to human and kiwi meets the scientific method?

Don't compare them to religion, just on their own merits, how do they meet? What testing is capable of being done? What evidence is there to support the hypotheses and make them theories?




Still waiting, Tommy

 

[tommyjones]

Enlighten me. What about abiogenesis meets the scientific method?

What about sponge to human and kiwi meets the scientific method?

Don't compare them to religion, just on their own merits, how do they meet? What testing is capable of being done? What evidence is there to support the hypotheses and make them theories?




Still waiting, Tommy

this has been gone over so many times, i refuse to play your game anymore. all you are going to do is ignore, and then say "well religion meets the same criteria" when it clearly doesn't.

have fun debating with yourself. it seems you have driven away even the most patient members with your idiocy.

 

[wxtornado]

Evolution from sponge to human, ........

More creationist douche-water dogma. Did your intellectually bankrupt pastor teach you that humans evolved from sponges? Tell him I said that he's an idiot, and that I invite him here for a debate.

 

[PsyOps]

More creationist douche-water dogma. Did your intellectually bankrupt pastor teach you that humans evolved from sponges? Tell him I said that he's an idiot, and that I invite him here for a debate.

Really? What scientific data do you have that proves we didn't evolve from sponges?